ST - Tamil Nadu Cricket Association receiving ten crores from BCCI - Department has failed to establish that appellant has rendered a service falling within the definition of 'Support Services of Business or Commerce': CESTAT

2023-TIOL-236-HC-AHM-GST

Devi Products Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Petitioner seeks to challenge legality and validity of impugned order whereby registration certificate granted to petitioner under CGST Tax Act, 2017 and Gujarat Goods and Services Tax, 2017 has been cancelled w.e.f 01.07.2017 - What one finds is that it was a case of non-filing of return for six months - Assuming that requirement of filing of return and consequences for non-filing of return for six months is apparent in statutory provision, the very nature of notice has been held by this Court in decision of Aggrawal Dyeing as cryptic and unsustainable under law - Moreover, what is far more vital to be considered is the order which has been passed and that raises a serious concern as the consequential order also is cryptic - While cancelling the registration, authority concerned has not even determined the amount payable pursuant to such cancellation - Assuming that the notice which merely speaks of "any tax payer other than composition tax payer has not filed returns for a continuous period of six months" would be comprehensible for assessee to respond to the same as he was also given an opportunity to appear on 23.03.2021, this non-appearance on part of respondent when has resulted into cancellation of registration that too from the first date i.e. 01.07.2017 much prior to 2020 when he had defaulted in filing the returns, what is completely incomprehensible is that cancellation of registration without any determination of amount which is to be paid by petitioner which is hardly sustainable and such action can hardly be ratified in any manner - Court having noticed the repeated actions on the part of officers of issuance of notice had also seriously frowned upon non following of decision - However, it has been brought to notice that this is prior to delivery of judgment in the month of February, 2022, therefore nothing further is to be stated as Assistant Government Pleader had also drawn the attention of this Court of senior officers having taken note of said decision and having circulated the same amongst them - SCN is quashed and the consequential order cancelling registration with liberty to respondent to issue fresh notice with particular reasons incorporating details and a reasonable opportunity of hearing to applicant and to pass appropriate speaking order: HC

- Writ application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-237-HC-AHM-CX

Gyscoal Alloys Ltd Vs UoI

CX - Two issues that require consideration are nonavailment of an opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses and also non-grant of personal hearing as provided under statute - All the hearings were granted physical hearing that too during complete lockdown and last hearing was virtual hearing granted only to main noticee with respect to only one SCN and noticee had sent the correction in record of personal hearing, which is not taken on record - However, there is an admission on the part of Original Adjudicating Authority in its order - In this view, non-granting of effective hearing itself is in gross violation of natural justice - Apex Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries 2015-TIOL-255-SC-CX , was dealing with a case where assessee had not been allowed cross examination of witnesses by adjudicating authority though the statement of those witnesses were made the basis of impugned order - The authority concerned is seeking to rely upon certain statements following the various decisions of this Court, the dialect of which is not necessary and decision of Apex Court is sufficient enough to bring to the fore the requirement of permitting cross examination of witnesses whose statements are sought to be relied upon by authorities - The order impugned passed by authority concerned is quashed and matter remitted to the stage where it was left for the authority concerned to avail an opportunity within two weeks - Once this opportunity of personal hearing is granted, without seeking any further adjournment, petitioner/s shall cooperate: HC

- Writ application partly allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-137-CESTAT-MAD

Tamil Nadu Cricket Association Vs CST

ST - Appellant had received a sum of Rupees Ten Crores from M/s. Board of Control for Cricket in India ('BCCI') for providing the Chepauk Stadium and assisting in the conduct of the Indian Premier League (IPL) twenty over cricket matches by M/s. India Cements Ltd. - According to the Department, the aforesaid appeared to be rendering infrastructural support service and would fall under 'Support Services of Business or Commerce' - Show Cause Notices dated 19.04.2010, 05.04.2011 and 10.10.2011 were issued to the appellant proposing to demand the Service tax along with interest and also for imposing penalties – Demands were confirmed and penalties imposed, therefore, the present appeals. Held : Department has failed to furnish the necessary facts to establish that the Stadium was given to the BCCI for the conduct of the matches and also to establish that the sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/- was a consideration received for providing the said Stadium - Original Authority had dropped the demand holding that Service Tax cannot be demanded under the category of Support Service of Business or Commerce for the activity undertaken by M/s. Rajasthan Cricket Association observing that BCCI is not a commercial concern and the arrangement between M/s. Rajasthan Cricket Association and the BCCI cannot be considered as a Support Service of Business or Commerce and this view of the Original Authority was upheld by the Tribunal [ 2018-TIOL-1345-CESTAT Delhi ] – Similarly, in M/s. KPH Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd., it was held that BCCI being the sole authority to manage the sport of cricket in India cannot be considered as involved in business or commerce with reference to activity of developing infrastructure for such sport; therefore, service tax was not payable; that in the case of M/s. Vidarbha Cricket Association [ 2013-TIOL-1915-CESTAT-MUM ] it was held that cricket associations cannot be considered as business or commercial organizations - Department has failed to establish that the appellant has rendered a service falling within the definition of 'Support Services of Business or Commerce', therefore, impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 9, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 11]

- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT